khunsanuk Posted July 22, 2008 Report Share Posted July 22, 2008 Hi, "Well, this "fucking" person is one who believes that humans have a soul, and are NOT soulless talking monkeys. And since I see no evidence that the "soul" enters when the umbilical cord is cut, and the DNA matching is complete at conception (just add nourishment), I think the burden of proof is on those who would argue to the contrary." How can the burden of proof be on 'those who would argue to the contrary' when you start of your claim with you being 'one who believes'? Shouldn't you have to proof your beliefs first? Sanuk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted July 22, 2008 Report Share Posted July 22, 2008 Agreed KS. Since we are discussing things that are black-n-white, as law-writing needs to be (case-by-case mitigation is another story), then the scientific answer would be exactly what was established by Roe-v-Wade. A baby is a human life only when it can be viable outside of its mother's body. Before that, by definition, it is simply a parasite (harsh or not, parasite IS the correct scientific terminology). "Souls" are a religious belief, and as such have zero bearing on law. Oh, and BTW L-w-B, re your statement: [color:red]However, IUDs and RU-486 pills (so-called "emergency contraception") work AFTER CONCEPTION, and therefore ABORT development of the fetus[/color], try again. Mifepristone, aka RU-486 or the morning-after pill, does not kill the zygote (it ain't even a fetus, let alone a "baby," until the eighth week). It simply denies it the ability to implant itself into the wall of the uterus (or causes the sloughing of the lining ala menstruation if it already has), thereby inhibiting it's ability to become a parasite to the host. It then dies of starvation since it is not a viable life form. An overdose of "the pill" does the same thing, but is much less safe for the user. One could easily claim that this result is God's will." I mean, that's a pretty wide-open thing, innit? An IUD is simply another way to prevent the sperm from meeting the egg, no different in concept to "the pill" or a condom. Cheers, SD PS -- L-w-B, if a woman has a miscarriage, is that murder? Under your definition, I can see it. God's will is a dangerous thing to cite. I mean, since it is based upon nothing but "faith," you could easily say that (ohh, fer instance) the Virginia Tech killer was simply executing God's will. You can't prove it not to be, right? Hence the need to keep "God" and "faith" out of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian2 Posted July 22, 2008 Report Share Posted July 22, 2008 First off, your typical "pill" is NOT abortive. No conception takes place. Good christian people disagree with you, you may have to reassess your political position. Birth Contol Pills Cause Abortions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bust Posted July 22, 2008 Report Share Posted July 22, 2008 Statistics have shown in the US that legalizing abortion reduces crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Posted July 22, 2008 Report Share Posted July 22, 2008 Statistics have shown in the US that legalizing abortion reduces crime. Especially when the legal limit is 18 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted July 22, 2008 Report Share Posted July 22, 2008 << A baby is a human life only when it can be viable outside of its mother's body. >> I'd say a baby is not viable until it is well into its teens. Until then someone has to feed, cloth, house etc the critter. I've long suggested that abortion should be legal up to the age of say 16. Every kid would be allowed 3 official warnings. After that ... BANG! You're aborted kid. Every teacher I've ever mentioned this to has agreed, usually with a couple of students in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted July 22, 2008 Report Share Posted July 22, 2008 << "Souls" are a religious belief, and as such have zero bearing on law. >> Soul or no soul should be immaterial. If there is such a thing, it is not killed by abortion. The question is one of life. Is abortion merely preventing a potential life or is it taking one that already exists? Where is the dividing line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loner w/a boner Posted July 22, 2008 Report Share Posted July 22, 2008 How can the burden of proof be on 'those who would argue to the contrary' when you start of your claim with you being 'one who believes'? Shouldn't you have to proof your beliefs first? Sanuk! First, Hi KS!. Both positions, "soul / no soul" are "beliefs". Neither one can currently be scientifically proven or disproven. So, for me, the question is, which belief does the law and culture defend and assume is true? It has long been held by biologists that life begins at conception. And for me, the answer is that it is better to err on the side of caution, taking the position of trying to defend the most basic of human rights--survival over the right of freedom of choice. Cloning is one example. I'd love to have a spare liver sitting around in a petrie dish somewhere, just waiting for me, but what if my total self was cloned? Would that clone be my property (I entered into a business contract to have a service provider clone me--and the DNA would be mine, not the government's), or would it be human due full rights? Better to err on the side of the most basic human right, and if it can be proven later that this clone isn't human, laws can always be changed. Black people used to be treated the same way. Since they weren't educated in western knowledge, it was assumed they were incapable of intelligent thought. They were corporate assets, like cattle. If blacks are more animal than man (abominable belief), then, okay. But surely even in those days it was better to assume they were fully human with full rights. If it was later proven that they were somehow sub-human, then so be it. When my father was dying of cancer, I stayed at his home and took care of him. The other kids wanted to put him in some nursing facility. He didn't need specialized care, they just didn't want to deal with watching him die. I wouldn't have it. I moved out of my home and into his. One day I got a phone call from his doctor. He mentioned that "it would soon be time to decide" if I wanted to keep him alive longer, OR would I prefer to "let him pass" sooner and get it over with. My father never made his desires known on this matter AND he was pain-free due to medication, thus making the decision a bit easier. I do not know that I would have the heart to torturously make someone continue in pain when a soon-to-be merciful death could relieve them. I told the doctor that I would rather keep a dead piece of meet warm than take a life before it naturally expired (not in those exact words, of course). I'm just saying that the two beliefs regarding "life" should be dealt with by assuming the fertilized egg is life. If it later scientifically proven to not be true, then fine. I do not claim to have any smug superiority on this issue. I have no special insight into when the soul enters the body (assuming there is such a thing as a soul). Conception? First brain wave activity? Viability outside the womb? I have absolutely no idea. But, as for clones, "primitive human-types" (OMG), terminally ill people, and the unborn, I would rather protect them and (at least until proven otherwise) deny the right of clone owners, slave holders, right-to-die proponents, and pregnant women to act to the contrary. I truly do not mean to be heartless or mindless on the issue. Take Care, LWB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loner w/a boner Posted July 22, 2008 Report Share Posted July 22, 2008 Oh, and BTW L-w-B, re your statement: [color:red]However, IUDs and RU-486 pills (so-called "emergency contraception") work AFTER CONCEPTION, and therefore ABORT development of the fetus[/color], try again. Mifepristone, aka RU-486 or the morning-after pill, does not kill the zygote...It simply denies it the ability to implant itself into the wall of the uterus (or causes the sloughing of the lining ala menstruation if it already has), thereby inhibiting it's ability to become a parasite to the host. It then dies of starvation since it is not a viable life form. I had a suspicion that the website you referenced may have given you incorrect information, so I did a bit of looking and came up with the following. I also noticed references to "second generation" IUD, so its functionality may have changed somewhat, too, not sure. [color:green]How it works Both types of IUD prevent fertilization of the egg by damaging or killing sperm. The IUD also affects the uterine lining (where a fertilized egg would implant and grow).[/color] [color:green]How an IUD Works Hormonal and copper IUDs work in different ways. With a copper IUD, a small amount of copper is released into the uterus. This type of IUD does not affect ovulation or the menstrual cycle. Copper IUDs prevent sperm from being able to go into the egg by immobilizing the sperm on the way to the fallopian tubes. If an egg does become fertilized, implantation on the wall of the uterus is prevented because copper changes the lining of the uterus. With hormonal IUDs, a small amount of progestin or a similar hormone is released into the uterus. These hormones thicken cervical mucus and make it difficult for sperm to enter the cervix. Hormonal IUDs also slow down the growth of the uterine lining, making it inhabitable for fertilized eggs.[/color] Also, RU-486, the morning-after pill, is also abortive because fertilization can occur within moments after ejaculation. There's gotta be a viable egg and sperm. Then all that's left is travel time (there's gotta be a joke here about it depending on how long the cock is, hehehe). "Souls" are a religious belief, and as such have zero bearing on law. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.." The belief in a creator is a religious belief, and yet our Declaration of Independence states that our unalienable rights come from "Him", whomever He is. Those rights don't come from the will of the majority or from the or Constitution, but the "creator". Also, governments are established to secure what the creator has given "all men". Of course, how we interpret and apply all that is part of the political debate, sigh... PS -- L-w-B, if a woman has a miscarriage, is that murder? No sir, I define murder as the intentional and unjustified taking of "innocent" human life, manslaughter as the unintentional and unjustified taking of "innocent" human life, and killing as either the intentional or not BUT justified taking of "not innocent" human life. For time sake, begging of course, the term "innocent". If a pregnant woman, for example, is a crack smoker she can be charged criminally in the U. S. But if a gal simply has a miscarriage, she has done nothing, as far as anyone knows, to cause it. I would consider that a most unfortunate accident. One could easily claim that this result is God's will." I mean, that's a pretty wide-open thing, innit?...God's will is a dangerous thing to cite. Yep, which I find humbling and a reminder that people such as myself, who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones. You know what they say, "Every time you point your finger at someone, you have 4 fingers pointing back." Remember all the furor over AIDS / HIV? All the: "It's God's curse over the Sodomites." type stuff. Very anger-filled and self-righteous, indeed. I mean, since it is based upon nothing but "faith," you could easily say that (ohh, fer instance) the Virginia Tech killer was simply executing God's will. You can't prove it not to be, right? Hence the need to keep "God" and "faith" out of law. Agreed, absolutely. I do find it amazing that many who are upset at the "ungodliness" of others will go out and violate the command "Thou shall not murder". That's what the abortion bombers do. "...abortion is murder, murders should be stopped, therefore I'll kill the murderer, thus fulfilling God's law..." Some of our Muslim friends seem to have the same problem. As far as God and law goes, I think that any form of extreme ideology applied to government can lead to tyranny. Pro-worker's rights / anti--poverty position of the Marxists if applied leads to horrors on Earth, "pure race" crap as in Hitler led to that mess, just as a theocracy would lead to: "The Council of Elders has decided that it is God's will for you to...(insert horror here)". I would certainly agree with you on that. On that, I am pro-choice, fer shur! *Please Note: At least one of SD's quotes I moved from one quote box to another, resulting in NOT exact quotes. I did this for the purpose of putting similar ideas together. Any change in meaning was unintentional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loner w/a boner Posted July 22, 2008 Report Share Posted July 22, 2008 First off, your typical "pill" is NOT abortive. No conception takes place. Good christian people disagree with you, you may have to reassess your political position. Birth Contol Pills Cause Abortions. Wow, that's new to me. Thanks for posting that link. This isn't the kind of thing I really keep up with very much. According to that website, the research indicating "the pill" is an abortive isn't even all that new. The book referenced apparently was published in 1998. And judging from all those quotes, if they're genuine, many physicians would agree. Also, typically, those opposed to "the pill" were typically Catholic. Near the bottom of that referenced web page, the term "pastor" is used. Not sure, but wouldn't a Catholic use the word "priest"??? dunno Change in political position: No. Change from supporting to not supporting use of "the pill": Yes, perhaps. After viewing corroborating data. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.